linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v8 0/2] Add support for Gunyah Watchdog

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <e9e7dbbf-f7f0-4b66-9e3f-7578441dfc5a@quicinc.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2026 11:25:49 +0530
From: Pavan Kondeti <pavan.kondeti@....qualcomm.com>
To: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>
Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>, Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
        devicetree@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Pavan Kondeti <pavan.kondeti@....qualcomm.com>,
        Neil Armstrong <neil.armstrong@...aro.org>,
        Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@....qualcomm.com>,
        Shivendra Pratap <shivendra.pratap@....qualcomm.com>,
        Konrad Dybcio <konradybcio@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk+dt@...nel.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/2] Add support for Gunyah Watchdog

Hi Bjorn and Wim,

On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 06:30:47PM +0530, Hrishabh Rajput wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/2/2025 9:29 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 02/12/2025 12:23, Hrishabh Rajput wrote:
> > > Hi Bjorn, Guenter, and Wim,
> > > 
> > > Just a gentle ping on this series.
> > 
> > It's merge window. There was no point in pinging just before merge
> > window and is even worse to ping now. Nothing can happen with this
> > patchset and such pings is only noise.
> > 
> 
> Thanks for the guidance and apologies for the noise created during the merge
> window.
> 
> > > 
> > > Since the patches have received Reviewed-by tags from Dmitry and
> > > Guenter, I wanted to confirm the merge strategy.
> > > 
> > > Bjorn: Are you planning to pick the QCOM SCM changes separately through
> > > your tree, or would you prefer the whole series go through the Watchdog
> > > tree?
> > > If the latter, do we need an explicit Acked-by from you for QCOM SCM patch?
> > 
> > Where did you document dependencies between patches and any non-obvious
> > merging? I open cover letter and there is NOTHING. I look at patch
> > changelog and also NOTHING.
> > 
> > So if you tell us nothing, why would we care to think we need to do
> > anything special here?
> > 
> > You must explicitly document every dependency, both external and between
> > patches, in the cover letter. At least cover letter, some people (e.g.
> > mostly me) don't even read them...
> > 
> 
> This is a miss from my end. The following information should have been the
> part of the cover letter:
> ```
> This series spans 2 subsystems and is split as follows:
> - Patch 1: QCOM SCM - Register Gunyah Watchdog Platform device
> - Patch 2: Watchdog - Add Gunyah Watchdog driver
> 
> Dependency:
> There is no build-time dependency between the patches, but Patch 1 is
> required for Patch 2 to function.
> 
> Merge strategies:
> - Strategy 1: Take both patches via the Watchdog tree.
> - Strategy 2: Take Patch 1 via QCM SCM maintainter's tree, Patch 2 via
> Watchdog tree.
> 
> Since the patches concern primarily with the Watchdog, I suggest we go ahead
> with Strategy 1. If this is acceptable, I request an Acked-by from QCOM SCM
> maintainer for Patch 1.
> ```
> 

Is it possible to pick it up for v6.20? As mentioned above, both patches
don't have compile time dependency, however the QCOM SCM patch is needed
for probing the watchdog device.

Thanks,
Pavan